Jump to content

Borsuk's conjecture: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
display="inline" for inline <math> to make line-height fit better; {{blockquote}} instead of colon-indented blockquote (by SublimeText.Mediawiker)
{{mvar}}/{{math}} for inline math expressions, for consistency with equations in paragraphs (by SublimeText.Mediawiker)
Line 15: Line 15:
| url = http://matwbn.icm.edu.pl/ksiazki/fm/fm20/fm20117.pdf| doi = 10.4064/fm-20-1-177-190
| url = http://matwbn.icm.edu.pl/ksiazki/fm/fm20/fm20117.pdf| doi = 10.4064/fm-20-1-177-190
| doi-access = free
| doi-access = free
}}</ref> that an ordinary 3-dimensional [[ball (mathematics)|ball]] in [[Euclidean space]] can be easily dissected into 4 solids, each of which has a smaller [[diameter]] than the ball, and generally ''n''-dimensional ball can be covered with {{nobr|''n'' +&thinsp;1}} [[Compact space|compact]] [[Set (mathematics)|sets]] of diameters smaller than the ball. At the same time he proved that ''n'' [[subset]]s are not enough in general. The proof is based on the [[Borsuk–Ulam theorem]]. That led Borsuk to a general question:<ref name="BorsukFM" />
}}</ref> that an ordinary 3-dimensional [[ball (mathematics)|ball]] in [[Euclidean space]] can be easily dissected into 4 solids, each of which has a smaller [[diameter]] than the ball, and generally {{mvar|n}}-dimensional ball can be covered with {{math|''n'' + 1}} [[Compact space|compact]] [[Set (mathematics)|sets]] of diameters smaller than the ball. At the same time he proved that {{mvar|n}} [[subset]]s are not enough in general. The proof is based on the [[Borsuk–Ulam theorem]]. That led Borsuk to a general question:<ref name="BorsukFM" />


{{blockquote |text=
{{blockquote |text=
{{lang|de|text= Die folgende Frage bleibt offen: Lässt sich jede beschränkte Teilmenge E des Raumes {{math|&reals;<sup>n</sup>}} in (n&nbsp;+&thinsp;1) Mengen zerlegen, von denen jede einen kleineren Durchmesser als E hat?}}
''{{lang|de|text= Die folgende Frage bleibt offen: Lässt sich jede beschränkte Teilmenge {{mvar|E}} des Raumes {{math|&reals;<sup>n</sup>}} in ({{math|n + 1}}) Mengen zerlegen, von denen jede einen kleineren Durchmesser als {{mvar|E}} hat? |italic= unset}}''


The following question remains open: Can every [[bounded set|bounded]] subset ''E'' of the space {{math|&reals;<sup>''n''</sup>}} be [[partition of a set|partitioned]] into (''n''&nbsp;+&thinsp;1) sets, each of which has a smaller diameter than ''E''?
The following question remains open: Can every [[bounded set|bounded]] subset {{mvar|E}} of the space {{math|&reals;<sup>''n''</sup>}} be [[partition of a set|partitioned]] into ({{math|''n'' + 1}}) sets, each of which has a smaller diameter than {{mvar|E}}?
|multiline= yes
|multiline= yes
|source= {{lang|de|Drei Sätze über die n-dimensionale euklidische Sphäre}}
|source= {{lang|de|Drei Sätze über die n-dimensionale euklidische Sphäre}}
Line 26: Line 26:


The question was answered in the positive in the following cases:
The question was answered in the positive in the following cases:
* ''n'' = 2 — which is the original result by Karol Borsuk (1932).
* {{math|1= ''n'' = 2}} — which is the original result by Karol Borsuk (1932).
* ''n'' = 3 — shown by Julian Perkal (1947),<ref>{{citation
* {{math|1= ''n'' = 3}} — shown by Julian Perkal (1947),<ref>{{citation
| last = Perkal | first = Julian
| last = Perkal | first = Julian
| journal = Colloquium Mathematicum
| journal = Colloquium Mathematicum
Line 33: Line 33:
| title = Sur la subdivision des ensembles en parties de diamètre inférieur
| title = Sur la subdivision des ensembles en parties de diamètre inférieur
| volume = 2
| volume = 2
| year = 1947}}</ref> and independently, 8 years later, by H. G. Eggleston (1955).<ref>{{citation
| year = 1947
| lang = fr}}</ref> and independently, 8 years later, by H. G. Eggleston (1955).<ref>{{citation
| last = Eggleston | first = H. G.
| last = Eggleston | first = H. G.
| mr = 0067473
| mr = 0067473
Line 42: Line 43:
| year = 1955
| year = 1955
| doi = 10.1112/jlms/s1-30.1.11}}</ref> A simple proof was found later by [[Branko Grünbaum]] and Aladár Heppes.
| doi = 10.1112/jlms/s1-30.1.11}}</ref> A simple proof was found later by [[Branko Grünbaum]] and Aladár Heppes.
* For all ''n'' for [[Smooth manifold|smooth]] convex bodies — shown by [[Hugo Hadwiger]] (1946).<ref>{{citation
* For all {{mvar|n}} for [[Smooth manifold|smooth]] convex bodies — shown by [[Hugo Hadwiger]] (1946).<ref>{{citation
| last = Hadwiger | first = Hugo | authorlink = Hugo Hadwiger
| last = Hadwiger | first = Hugo | authorlink = Hugo Hadwiger
| mr = 0013901
| mr = 0013901
Line 51: Line 52:
| issue = 1
| issue = 1
| year = 1945
| year = 1945
| lang = de
| doi = 10.1007/BF02568103| s2cid = 122199549 }}</ref><ref>{{citation
| doi = 10.1007/BF02568103| s2cid = 122199549 }}</ref><ref>{{citation
| last = Hadwiger | first = Hugo | authorlink = Hugo Hadwiger
| last = Hadwiger | first = Hugo | authorlink = Hugo Hadwiger
Line 60: Line 62:
| issue = 1
| issue = 1
| year = 1946
| year = 1946
| lang = de
| doi = 10.1007/BF02565947| s2cid = 121053805 }}</ref>
| doi = 10.1007/BF02565947| s2cid = 121053805 }}</ref>
* For all ''n'' for [[Central symmetry|centrally-symmetric]] bodies — shown by A.S. Riesling (1971).<ref>{{citation
* For all {{mvar|n}} for [[Central symmetry|centrally-symmetric]] bodies — shown by A.S. Riesling (1971).<ref>{{citation
| url = http://geometry.karazin.ua/resources/articles/594b744b34d8b035cdea7128bbae7d64.pdf
| url = http://geometry.karazin.ua/resources/articles/594b744b34d8b035cdea7128bbae7d64.pdf
| language = ru
| language = ru
Line 72: Line 75:
| volume = 11
| volume = 11
| year = 1971}}</ref>
| year = 1971}}</ref>
* For all ''n'' for [[Solid of revolution|bodies of revolution]] — shown by Boris Dekster (1995).<ref>{{citation
* For all {{mvar|n}} for [[Solid of revolution|bodies of revolution]] — shown by Boris Dekster (1995).<ref>{{citation
| last = Dekster | first = Boris
| last = Dekster | first = Boris
| mr = 1317256
| mr = 1317256
Line 95: Line 98:
| year = 1993
| year = 1993
| arxiv = math/9307229
| arxiv = math/9307229
| doi = 10.1090/S0273-0979-1993-00398-7| s2cid = 119647518 }}</ref> They claim that their construction shows that {{nobr|''n'' +&thinsp;1}} pieces do not suffice for {{nobr|1=''n'' =&thinsp;1325}} and for each {{nobr|''n'' > 2014}}. However, as pointed out by Bernulf Weißbach,<ref>{{citation
| doi = 10.1090/S0273-0979-1993-00398-7| s2cid = 119647518 }}</ref> They claim that their construction shows that {{math|''n'' + 1}} pieces do not suffice for {{math|1=''n'' = 1325}} and for each {{math|''n'' > 2014}}. However, as pointed out by Bernulf Weißbach,<ref>{{citation
| url = https://www.emis.de/journals/BAG/vol.41/no.2/b41h2wb1.pdf
| url = https://www.emis.de/journals/BAG/vol.41/no.2/b41h2wb1.pdf
| last1 = Weißbach | first1 = Bernulf
| last1 = Weißbach | first1 = Bernulf
Line 103: Line 106:
| volume = 41
| volume = 41
| issue = 2
| issue = 2
| year = 2000
| year = 2000}}</ref> the first part of this claim is in fact false. But after improving a suboptimal conclusion within the corresponding derivation, one can indeed verify one of the constructed point sets as a counterexample for ''n'' =&thinsp;1325 (as well as all higher dimensions up to 1560).<ref>{{citation
| lang = de}}</ref> the first part of this claim is in fact false. But after improving a suboptimal conclusion within the corresponding derivation, one can indeed verify one of the constructed point sets as a counterexample for {{math|1=''n'' = 1325}} (as well as all higher dimensions up to 1560).<ref>{{citation
| last1 = Jenrich | first1 = Thomas
| last1 = Jenrich | first1 = Thomas
| title = On the counterexamples to Borsuk's conjecture by Kahn and Kalai
| title = On the counterexamples to Borsuk's conjecture by Kahn and Kalai
Line 109: Line 113:
| arxiv = 1809.09612v4}}</ref>
| arxiv = 1809.09612v4}}</ref>


Their result was improved in 2003 by Hinrichs and Richter, who constructed finite sets for {{nobr|''n'' ≥ 298}}, which cannot be partitioned into {{nobr|''n'' +&thinsp;11}} parts of smaller diameter.<ref name=HinrRicht />
Their result was improved in 2003 by Hinrichs and Richter, who constructed finite sets for {{math|''n'' ≥ 298}}, which cannot be partitioned into {{math|''n'' + 11}} parts of smaller diameter.<ref name=HinrRicht />


In 2013, Andriy V. Bondarenko had shown that Borsuk’s conjecture is false for all {{nobr|''n'' ≥ 65}}.<ref>
In 2013, Andriy V. Bondarenko had shown that Borsuk’s conjecture is false for all {{math|''n'' ≥ 65}}.<ref>
{{citation
{{citation
| last = Bondarenko | first = Andriy
| last = Bondarenko | first = Andriy
Line 141: Line 145:
}}</ref>
}}</ref>


Apart from finding the minimum number ''n'' of dimensions such that the number of pieces <math>\alpha(n) > n+1</math>, mathematicians are interested in finding the general behavior of the function <math>\alpha(n)</math>. Kahn and Kalai show that in general (that is, for ''n'' sufficiently large), one needs <math display="inline">\alpha(n) \ge (1.2)^\sqrt{n}</math> many pieces. They also quote the upper bound by [[Oded Schramm]], who showed that for every ''ε'', if ''n'' is sufficiently large, <math display="inline">\alpha(n) \le \left(\sqrt{3/2} + \varepsilon\right)^n</math>.<ref>{{citation
Apart from finding the minimum number {{mvar|n}} of dimensions such that the number of pieces {{math|''α''(''n'') > ''n'' + 1}}, mathematicians are interested in finding the general behavior of the function {{math|''α''(''n'')}}. Kahn and Kalai show that in general (that is, for {{mvar|n}} sufficiently large), one needs <math display="inline">\alpha(n) \ge (1.2)^\sqrt{n}</math> many pieces. They also quote the upper bound by [[Oded Schramm]], who showed that for every {{mvar|ε}}, if {{mvar|n}} is sufficiently large, <math display="inline">\alpha(n) \le \left(\sqrt{3/2} + \varepsilon\right)^n</math>.<ref>{{citation
| last = Schramm | first = Oded | authorlink1 = Oded Schramm
| last = Schramm | first = Oded | authorlink1 = Oded Schramm
| mr = 0986627
| mr = 0986627
Line 150: Line 154:
| issue = 2
| issue = 2
| year = 1988
| year = 1988
| doi = 10.1112/S0025579300015175}}</ref> The correct order of magnitude of ''α''(''n'') is still unknown.<ref>{{citation
| doi = 10.1112/S0025579300015175}}</ref> The correct order of magnitude of {{math|''α''(''n'')}} is still unknown.<ref>{{citation
| last = Alon | first = Noga | authorlink1 = Noga Alon
| last = Alon | first = Noga | authorlink1 = Noga Alon
| journal = Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians, Beijing
| journal = Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians, Beijing
Line 157: Line 161:
| volume = 1
| volume = 1
| year = 2002
| year = 2002
| arxiv = math/0212390| bibcode = 2002math.....12390A}}</ref> However, it is conjectured that there is a constant {{nobr|''c'' > 1}} such that <math>\alpha(n) > c^n</math> for all {{nobr|''n'' ≥ 1}}.
| arxiv = math/0212390| bibcode = 2002math.....12390A}}</ref> However, it is conjectured that there is a constant {{math|''c'' > 1}} such that {{math|''α''(''n'') > ''c<sup>n</sup>''}} for all {{math|''n'' ≥ 1}}.


==See also==
==See also==

Revision as of 18:53, 4 July 2023

An example of a hexagon cut into three pieces of smaller diameter.

The Borsuk problem in geometry, for historical reasons[note 1] incorrectly called Borsuk's conjecture, is a question in discrete geometry. It is named after Karol Borsuk.

Problem

In 1932, Karol Borsuk showed[2] that an ordinary 3-dimensional ball in Euclidean space can be easily dissected into 4 solids, each of which has a smaller diameter than the ball, and generally n-dimensional ball can be covered with n + 1 compact sets of diameters smaller than the ball. At the same time he proved that n subsets are not enough in general. The proof is based on the Borsuk–Ulam theorem. That led Borsuk to a general question:[2]

Die folgende Frage bleibt offen: Lässt sich jede beschränkte Teilmenge E des Raumes n in (n + 1) Mengen zerlegen, von denen jede einen kleineren Durchmesser als E hat?

The following question remains open: Can every bounded subset E of the space n be partitioned into (n + 1) sets, each of which has a smaller diameter than E?

— Drei Sätze über die n-dimensionale euklidische Sphäre

The question was answered in the positive in the following cases:

  • n = 2 — which is the original result by Karol Borsuk (1932).
  • n = 3 — shown by Julian Perkal (1947),[3] and independently, 8 years later, by H. G. Eggleston (1955).[4] A simple proof was found later by Branko Grünbaum and Aladár Heppes.
  • For all n for smooth convex bodies — shown by Hugo Hadwiger (1946).[5][6]
  • For all n for centrally-symmetric bodies — shown by A.S. Riesling (1971).[7]
  • For all n for bodies of revolution — shown by Boris Dekster (1995).[8]

The problem was finally solved in 1993 by Jeff Kahn and Gil Kalai, who showed that the general answer to Borsuk's question is no.[9] They claim that their construction shows that n + 1 pieces do not suffice for n = 1325 and for each n > 2014. However, as pointed out by Bernulf Weißbach,[10] the first part of this claim is in fact false. But after improving a suboptimal conclusion within the corresponding derivation, one can indeed verify one of the constructed point sets as a counterexample for n = 1325 (as well as all higher dimensions up to 1560).[11]

Their result was improved in 2003 by Hinrichs and Richter, who constructed finite sets for n ≥ 298, which cannot be partitioned into n + 11 parts of smaller diameter.[1]

In 2013, Andriy V. Bondarenko had shown that Borsuk’s conjecture is false for all n ≥ 65.[12] Shortly after, Thomas Jenrich derived a 64-dimensional counterexample from Bondarenko's construction, giving the best bound up to now.[13][14]

Apart from finding the minimum number n of dimensions such that the number of pieces α(n) > n + 1, mathematicians are interested in finding the general behavior of the function α(n). Kahn and Kalai show that in general (that is, for n sufficiently large), one needs many pieces. They also quote the upper bound by Oded Schramm, who showed that for every ε, if n is sufficiently large, .[15] The correct order of magnitude of α(n) is still unknown.[16] However, it is conjectured that there is a constant c > 1 such that α(n) > cn for all n ≥ 1.

See also

Note

  1. ^ As Hinrichs and Richter say in the introduction to their work,[1] the "Borsuk's conjecture [was] believed by many to be true for some decades" (hence commonly called a conjecture) so "it came as a surprise when Kahn and Kalai constructed finite sets showing the contrary". It's worth noting, however, that Karol Borsuk has formulated the problem just as a question, not suggesting the expected answer would be positive.

References

  1. ^ a b Hinrichs, Aicke; Richter, Christian (28 August 2003). "New sets with large Borsuk numbers". Discrete Mathematics. 270 (1–3). Elsevier: 137–147. doi:10.1016/S0012-365X(02)00833-6.
  2. ^ a b Borsuk, Karol (1933), "Drei Sätze über die n-dimensionale euklidische Sphäre" (PDF), Fundamenta Mathematicae (in German), 20: 177–190, doi:10.4064/fm-20-1-177-190
  3. ^ Perkal, Julian (1947), "Sur la subdivision des ensembles en parties de diamètre inférieur", Colloquium Mathematicum (in French), 2: 45
  4. ^ Eggleston, H. G. (1955), "Covering a three-dimensional set with sets of smaller diameter", Journal of the London Mathematical Society, 30: 11–24, doi:10.1112/jlms/s1-30.1.11, MR 0067473
  5. ^ Hadwiger, Hugo (1945), "Überdeckung einer Menge durch Mengen kleineren Durchmessers", Commentarii Mathematici Helvetici (in German), 18 (1): 73–75, doi:10.1007/BF02568103, MR 0013901, S2CID 122199549
  6. ^ Hadwiger, Hugo (1946), "Mitteilung betreffend meine Note: Überdeckung einer Menge durch Mengen kleineren Durchmessers", Commentarii Mathematici Helvetici (in German), 19 (1): 72–73, doi:10.1007/BF02565947, MR 0017515, S2CID 121053805
  7. ^ Riesling, A. S. (1971), "Проблема Борсука в трехмерных пространствах постоянной кривизны" [Borsuk's problem in three-dimensional spaces of constant curvature] (PDF), Ukr. Geom. Sbornik (in Russian), 11, Kharkov State University (now National University of Kharkiv): 78–83
  8. ^ Dekster, Boris (1995), "The Borsuk conjecture holds for bodies of revolution", Journal of Geometry, 52 (1–2): 64–73, doi:10.1007/BF01406827, MR 1317256, S2CID 121586146
  9. ^ Kahn, Jeff; Kalai, Gil (1993), "A counterexample to Borsuk's conjecture", Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 29 (1): 60–62, arXiv:math/9307229, doi:10.1090/S0273-0979-1993-00398-7, MR 1193538, S2CID 119647518
  10. ^ Weißbach, Bernulf (2000), "Sets with Large Borsuk Number" (PDF), Beiträge zur Algebra und Geometrie (in German), 41 (2): 417–423
  11. ^ Jenrich, Thomas (2018), On the counterexamples to Borsuk's conjecture by Kahn and Kalai, arXiv:1809.09612v4
  12. ^ Bondarenko, Andriy (2014) [2013], "On Borsuk's Conjecture for Two-Distance Sets", Discrete & Computational Geometry, 51 (3): 509–515, arXiv:1305.2584, doi:10.1007/s00454-014-9579-4, MR 3201240
  13. ^ Jenrich, Thomas (2013), A 64-dimensional two-distance counterexample to Borsuk's conjecture, arXiv:1308.0206, Bibcode:2013arXiv1308.0206J
  14. ^ Jenrich, Thomas; Brouwer, Andries E. (2014), "A 64-Dimensional Counterexample to Borsuk's Conjecture", Electronic Journal of Combinatorics, 21 (4): #P4.29, doi:10.37236/4069, MR 3292266
  15. ^ Schramm, Oded (1988), "Illuminating sets of constant width", Mathematika, 35 (2): 180–189, doi:10.1112/S0025579300015175, MR 0986627
  16. ^ Alon, Noga (2002), "Discrete mathematics: methods and challenges", Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians, Beijing, 1: 119–135, arXiv:math/0212390, Bibcode:2002math.....12390A

Further reading